OPINION

April 16, 1997

ALL THINGS

CONSIDERED

By Cara Alligood

Pulling oneself up

is possible for all

Return to top A person that I admire greatly, my hero if you will, is Oprah Winfrey.
Sure, she had many things going against her in her early life. The same
things that many people use to explain why they are on drugs, on
welfare, or in jail are things that she dealt with. But instead of
letting these things drag her down, Oprah built a life and a successful
career, and has earned a great deal of respect as well as a fortune in
material goods.

Ms. Winfrey was born black, and a woman, and she is a survivor of
abuse. She took personal responsibility for her own life. She did the
things she felt were right, stayed in school, worked hard and became
successful. If she can do it, anyone can. Not everyone will, but we all
have the chance.

In general, nobody forces someone else to steal, have an illegitimate
child, cheat on their spouse, take a welfare check instead of a
paycheck, or embezzle their company's profits.

What it all comes down to is personal responsibility. We all make
mistakes. After all, we are human and not infallible. Some people make
mistakes, learn from them, and become stronger for the experience.
Others make excuses.

"The devil made me do it,"; "it was God's will,"; "everybody else is
doing it," and "he said that if I really loved him I would..." are
often-used excuses.

We don't often hear the admission, "I knew it was wrong, but I did it
anyway."

Maybe the lack of consequences for bad actions is to blame. If a killer
has a good chance of being acquitted of serving only a few years in
prison, isn't it likely that there will be more murders than if capital
punishment were a certain outcome?

If a teenage girl can expect Mom, Dad or the taxpayers to support her
and her illegitimate child, what's to keep her from getting pregnant?
Shame, the pain of childbirth and the threat of AIDS don't seem to be
doing the trick. Public acceptance of unwed mothers who keep their
illegitimate children doesn't help either. Many times, these women never
marry the father of their child.

I definitely do not advocate brutality, but there is a lot less theft
in those Middle Eastern countries where a person caught stealing gets
their hand cut off.

I don't have all the answers. Maybe some of you do. How can we return
this country to its former glory? How do we turn away from gangs and
welfare, back to people working and pulling their own weight? Will
people stop looking to the government to provide a living for them?
(Temporary food stamps are one thing, multi-generational welfare
families are quite another.) There was a time when one's family, church
and neighbors pulled together in times of trouble.

My suggestion is to strengthen the families of the future by empowering
today's young people with good educations, including the difference
between right and wrong, and set the best example for them to follow
that we can.

Nobody is perfect, but we can set high standards for ourselves and at
least try to live up to them. Can't we?

YOUR VIEWS

King James controlled revision

Return to top Dear Editor:
Since the author of the letter in the "Your Views" column April 11
blatantly implied that I gave "disinformation" about the number of
scholars who took on the task that produced the King James Version of
the Bible, I beg leave to offer proof in favor of the number 47 that I
asserted in the column dated April 2.

He says that the King James Version was translated, not revised, by 54,
not 47, men... Readers of my response can attest to the fact that I did
not write that those scholars took on the task to revise the King James'
Bible. However I need not repeat the article. Those readers who are
interested can re-read my article.

Now for the historical proof that 47 scholars took on the work, I
submit the following:
The renown Dr. Adam Clarke wrote in 1827 that a resolution was formed,
in consequence of a request made by Dr. Reynolds, head of the
nonconformist party, to King James I, in the conference held at Hampton
Court, that a new translation, or rather a revision of what is called
the Bishops' Bible, printed in 1568, should be made. Fifty-four
translators, divided into six classes, were appointed for the
accomplishment of this important work. Seven of these appear to have
died before the work commenced, as only forty-seven are found in
Fuller's list. Fuller's Church History, Book x., p.44ff shows the names
of the persons, the places where employed, and the proportion of work
allotted to each class and the rules laid down by King James for their
direction. I shall list only the number of persons for each place.
Namely, Westminster, 10 for the first class; Cambridge, 8 for the second
class; Oxford, 7 for the third class; Cambridge, 7 for the fourth class;
Oxford, 8, for the fifth class; Westminster, 7 for the sixth class.
[10+8+7+7+8+7 = 47].

Now for the rules recommended by his Majesty, by them to be most
carefully observed:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops'
Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with their other
names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they
are vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word Church not
to be translated Congregation, etc.
4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath
been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to
the propriety of the place, and the analogy of faith.
5 The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as
little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation
of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution,
so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve
for the fit reference of one scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter, or
chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself,
where he thinks good, all to meet together, confer what they have done,
and agree for their part what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they
shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and
judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful in this point.
10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or
differ upon any place, to send them word thereof, note the places, and
therewithal send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the
difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of
the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be
directed by authority, to send to any learned in the land, for his
judgment in such place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy,
admonishing them of this translation in hand; and to move and charge as
many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind,
to send his particular observations to the company, either at
Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and
Chester for that place and the King's Professors in Hebrew and Greek in
each university.
14. These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text
than the Bishops' Bible, viz., Tindal's, Matthews', Coverdale's,
Whitchurch, Geneva.

It appears to us that his Majesty King James was well aware that the
scholars were indeed appointed to make a revision of the Bishops' Bible,
which was the Common Bible used in the Church of England at that time.
I, therefore, close this section with a quotation from the Encyclopedia
Britannica (3,533; 1958ed.). It says: "The English Bible, which is now
recognized as the Authorized Version wherever the English language is
spoken, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and
published in 1611."

--L.J. Montgomery, Minister
Community Church of Christ

OTHER VIEWS

Recycling luster tarnished by cost

Return to top Fashionable ideas have a life of their own which can make them
impervious to reason. ... The (environmentalists') creed is simple ...
the only virtuous option is to recycle it.

Economics makes nonsense of most of these claims. The money saved by
recycling a kilo (2.2 pounds) of glass will drive a car only a mile and
a quarter (2 kilometers). ...

The problem is that the value of household waste is low, no greater in
money terms than it was in 1950. Then labor was cheap, and raw materials
expensive, so that the value of the waste would have justified efforts
to separate and recycle it. Since then the cost of raw materials has
fallen, while the cost of labor has risen, tilting the balance against
recycling. But persuading green ideologists of this uncomfortable fact
may not be easy. ...
-- The Times, London

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shallnot be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication orredistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these APMaterials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except forpersonal and non-commercial use. The AP will not be held liable forany delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in thetransmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damagesarising from any of the foregoing._